Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ad Hominem and Multiple Posts
- Thread starter Trajectory
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, I know. My point is that with the growth of the forum, they actually need to grow the mods as well in order to maintain the high standard that makes this one of the best forums on Teh Interwebs. When was the last time any mods were added?
WildCowboy, thanks for the clarification and info about my reports.
I didn't intend my post to be critical of moderators, I was just wondering how certain rules were now being enforced. I've set up and run forums and communities myself and know how difficult it is to moderate evenly. In general, MacRumors does a very good job considering the influx of Windows users who have little regard for community decorum.
I didn't intend my post to be critical of moderators, I was just wondering how certain rules were now being enforced. I've set up and run forums and communities myself and know how difficult it is to moderate evenly. In general, MacRumors does a very good job considering the influx of Windows users who have little regard for community decorum.
Schtumple said:
That doesn't necessarily make him good mod
.It also might be worth removing mods (if any - we don't know what's happening behind the scenes.) that have been MIA from MR for a signifcant period (say 6 months) for clarity on who the powers that be currently are.
That doesn't necessarily make him good mod
Well obviously
He does seem to have a bit of a temper sometimes, but who can blame him, he's constantly answering the same questions, and people very rarely bother to search, so i can see the frustration. But I think would he would probably end up resort to 24hr banning to quickly after reading the same threads over and over...
IIRC, the last time new moderators were appointed was in December 2007.
I think we need to keep in mind that the staff is well aware of what's happening (probably far more aware than anyone of us). I'm sure they are trying their best to find new moderators, and we need to have a little patience because I'm sure it's not an easy task.
I don't know...does a hiatus really warrant removal? Some mods that aren't on very often have nonetheless been present on some of MR's biggest days (like Keynote days). Besides, the "Show Groups" page gives us an idea of who is on at any given time, so that should be enough if we need to contact a mod.
18/12/2007 - thread
yellow, mad jew, mkrishnan and myself
Also
From my perspective all that happened for me to become a mod was one day out of the blue I got a PM from Doctor Q asking if I wanted to be come a moderator here.
Now from the other side there is a long long process in the background so anything that happens is not a knee jerk reaction.
That's too bad. I sincerely believe that should never happen.
I suspect that most of us who've been around here for some time do this already. It's in the response to these reports that many of are noting an increasingly inconsistent handling.
I've been involved with many volunteer-driven organizations over the years; in fact, working with these types of groups as both a volunteer and as an organizer of volunteers has been a big part of my life, so I do have some feel for this. The best (and most successful) organizations never treat volunteering as a black-box experience. They outreach constantly, always try to find a place for people who indicate a desire to help, never leave a potential volunteer hanging. Volunteering is an act of personal generosity. If an organization treats volunteering as though it was a privilege, then (whether they realize it or not) they are self-limiting their effectiveness.
Back when it was easy to look at the list of members of this forum, I was always surprised by the number of long-time active members who were not moderators. Dozens of them in the top 100 posters alone -- all obviously committed to the forum over a period of many years. Clearly few of them had been asked to help, because few of them would be likely to refuse. So when I hear that the problem is not enough moderators, I know that the real problem is a lack of asking.
They can always be reinstated.
Given that Apple has at least two of those a year (WWDC and iPod day) then they will be online more often than every six months or so, so it shouldn't be a problem.
EDIT: The reason I'm making this point there seem to be a comparitavely large number of moderators - only a few of which appear to be really active.
Length of time on MR is not so important I think. Maturity and a desire to help individuals is. And of course being able to do moderating functions.
Long time members can definitely help the moderating team by reporting posts that violate the rules of the site and by setting a good example.
Aye, there's the rub. What appears inconsistent to a regular user like you or me may not in fact be inconsistent at all. We don't know the "whole story" in each and every case, so our perception of how an individual post report was handled can be quite incorrect.
Take the OP's example of multi-quoting issues and personal attacks. What we see as posters is that the posts were perhaps deleted. However, the poster could have been given a warning in private which none of us would see. What we would see is the "time-out" or "banned" label if that poster ignores the warning a second, third, or forth time.
I'll have to just say I disagree on the basis of the old adage, "quality, not quantity." Just because an individual wants to be a moderator doesn't mean they will necessarily make a good moderator. Moreover, length of membership doesn't correlate perfectly with responsible membership.
The moderators and staff have always been able to recruit sufficient moderators to keep up with demand in the past, and their quality assurance seems to be quite good. Given that, I'm inclined to defer to the moderators on the wisdom of their selection process.
There's no need to remove a moderator just because they aren't here. They can moderate when they ARE here. Besides, it's not like it costs MR anything to leave them the title. Unlike some of us (*raises hand*), they've shown themselves to be level-headed members who rarely, if ever, reply out of frustration. Why would you get rid of their status?
There are those like Mad Jew who probably have a very legitimate reason for having posted only several times over the past 12 months, and when he gets his internet, and other, issues sorted out, perhaps he'll be telling people to repair their permissions once again.
I don't even see why the guy posts here. If you don't want to reply to repeat threads, don't post at MacRumours. What is he, new?
There are those like Mad Jew who probably have a very legitimate reason for having posted only several times over the past 12 months, and when he gets his internet, and other, issues sorted out, perhaps he'll be telling people to repair their permissions once again.
And I'm certain the admin know about him already.
I don't even see why the guy posts here. If you don't want to reply to repeat threads, don't post at MacRumours. What is he, new?
Doesn't that just make more trouble (bureaucratically speaking)? It seems easier to just leave things as they are.
I do see your point, but I just don't think removing their moderator status will really help anything.
I agree with you here, there is no need to remove their status. If they happen to come back, there is no reason they cannot pick up where they left off.
Although, it might help to add an "inactive" tag to users that haven't been on in say 6 months or so.
That's probably a better way to handle it - it could be good for normal users as well if that was possible.
It's important to judging commitment, and commitment itself is probably the single most important quality in a volunteer. In fact, everything else can be learned but commitment.
I've commented on the same issue, so I think it's probably real. Over the years I've seen a change in the way the forums are moderated and when I've commented on that issue, I've been told that the limitation is that moderators are volunteers. My response is that if the organization doesn't have enough volunteers to cover the task at hand, it's because they haven't been doing enough asking. That's the way it works everywhere else. Different here? I don't see how.
In looking at the list of people who've remained active in this forum for many years, I don't see one who could not handle moderation.
I'm involved with volunteers (and am a volunteer) who handle large sums of money, credit cards, work with children, and have other responsibilities which I strongly suspect are more weighty than having access to a forum member's e-mail address. I am not suggesting that everyone who strolls through the door should be offered positions of responsibility in any volunteer group. What I am saying is if the problem is an insufficient number of moderators to cover the growth of the forum, and the cadre of long-time committed members are not being actively drawn upon, then the shoe is on the other foot.
I've done some volunteer work, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Understandable; part of it can be that they don't know how to ask...or more likely, the volunteer who used to do the asking has left, and the duty fell between the cracks.
-hh
Most larger volunteer organizations have a volunteer manager who is in charge of locating people to fill positions, and also finding suitable places in the volunteer organization for virtually every person who demonstrates an interest in being involved. Some of this by necessity has to occur "behind the veil," but not every bit of it.
In my experience, people will sign on for some of the most remarkably mundane tasks if they believe it's for a good cause, so I don't think this is a major issue. The real issue in any volunteer organization is identifying the most committed individuals and keeping them committed. If you don't, one day they will just shrug their shoulders and walk away.
In my experience, people will sign on for some of the most remarkably mundane tasks if they believe it's for a good cause, so I don't think this is a major issue. The real issue in any volunteer organization is identifying the most committed individuals and keeping them committed. If you don't, one day they will just shrug their shoulders and walk away.
I don't know why "volunteer work" keeps being brought up.
Becoming a moderator and performing the duties of a forum moderator is not the same as being a volunteer. The only similarity is that both people are unpaid.
Becoming a moderator and performing the duties of a forum moderator is not the same as being a volunteer. The only similarity is that both people are unpaid.
I don't know why "volunteer work" keeps being brought up.
Becoming a moderator and performing those duties is in not the same as being a volunteer, and doing volunteer work. The only similarity is that both people are unpaid.
I don't understand the objection. The admins themselves describe the moderators as volunteers. They give freely of their time, so by definition, that's what they are.
Being a volunteer just means you are unpaid - and arguably that you don't have to turn up if you don't feel like it. Those seem to generally describe the moderators here.
IMHO, someone who is a volunteer, agrees to do a specific task without reimbursement. The MR moderators definitely fall under this category.
As for the size of the moderating team, one thing to consider, is that the larger the team gets, the harder it is to manage and keep standardized. I am sure this is a concern as well.
Anyhow, the more we long time members assist the moderators by reporting posts and set a good example, the better it is for MR.
As for the size of the moderating team, one thing to consider, is that the larger the team gets, the harder it is to manage and keep standardized. I am sure this is a concern as well.
Anyhow, the more we long time members assist the moderators by reporting posts and set a good example, the better it is for MR.